@OnlyThePie
Deism make more sense than theism, i'll grant you that, but why do you absolutely need to have a supernatural being in you explanation of the world? Why not just being OK with not knowing everything, instead of making up stories for the thing we don't know? Also if you think there is no alternative hypothesis to the god hypothesis concerning the creation of the universe, then i encourage you to read (or listen as an audio book): A Universe from Nothing, from Lawrence Krauss. In my opinion, i have always thought that scientific explanations (even at a hypothesis stage), are more beautiful, awe-inspiring and revelatory of the magnificence of our universe, than the simple "god did it" explanation. But that's just me

Edited 12/27/2015 00:23:26

Colonel said that he'd be mad if his child was taught that people evolved from apes, and wct quoted a few people stating that people are apes. If wct wants to convince Colonel that people have evolved from apes then he should provide evidence then stating something over and over again through quotes.

More to the point, Major General Smedley Butler, do *you* believe that humans did not evolve from apes, or are not currently apes? Would you be mad if your kid came home from school having learned that humans are apes?

While I agree that it's disgraceful that there are people who find evolution improbably, I agree with Smedley, wtc answered a question different from that asked.

Since we're getting all pedantic (which I *love* by the way! Be careful what you wish for ;-) ), I didn't 'answer' a question because Col. made a statement, not a question.

I contradicted (without evidence, it is true; my intent was not to persuade Col.) the implied belief system behind the statement, and added an additional observation that humans *are* still apes; since the idea that we have evolved 'from' apes leaves an ambiguity that many people misinterpret as saying that humans are *no longer* apes anymore. Quite simple and uncontroversial among those who understand the basic science of it.

Great, another debate on evolution, i've been wanting to make use of this list i made a few months ago :)

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/86257-proof-evolution

What if evolution was a mechanism created by God? This is a compromise (although not evidenced) that gives me comfort in the apparent contradiction between my dual belief in God and Science.

What if? You would end up with a God that explains nothing and has no predictive power whatsoever. You might as well hypothesize a race of invisible gnomes who conspire to make evolution appear to work exactly as a non-conscious stochastic process would work. Why don't you believe in these gnomes? They are exactly as useful a hypothesis as a 'god'; i.e. not at all. Occam's Razor. We have no need for that hypothesis.

I've recently become enamored with the concept of Deism. Since I myself prefer the scientific explanation to most things, but was always frustrated that a few things seemed to slip out of reach. The concept is that there was once a god, and he created the Universe long ago, and set up all the little things, like scientific laws and theories. But then he left. He didn't pay any more attention to his creation. Maybe he had better things to do. Maybe he felt no need to interfere. Kind of like how a watchmaker never needs to mess with his watches, because if he made it right, it should work perfectly without him. So while there might be some higher power, and certain things could be attributed to him, he has no concern with us, and therefore it's less likely we need to pray, or really do any religious work at all, because he doesn't care. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I have no issue with Deism, except for, again, Occam's Razor. But since it has no real practical consequences in the real world (except perhaps as being a stepping-stone towards atheism) I have no real reason to debate for or against Deism, other than simple intellectual exercise and curiosity.

I myself prefer to maintain disbelief in any particular belief until I have good reasons to maintain a particular belief. So, I see no good reasons to believe in a Deist god, so I don't. Same as the Christian gods and any other gods. For me this is the most consistent belief policy.

More to the point, Major General Smedley Butler, do *you* believe that humans did not evolve from apes, or are not currently apes? Would you be mad if your kid came home from school having learned that humans are apes?
I do believe in evolution. And I would be shocked to find out I have a child.

but why do you absolutely need to have a supernatural being in you explanation of the world?

Maybe I don't have an answer to that, except that theoretically the stakes are infinite costly for not believing in the Divine. Pascal's Wager is my only semi-valid counter. All things in life require faith...it just depends on what you put your faith in. This is what makes humans different.

@125ch I remember that :P

Believing is a win-win. If you believe there is an afterlife, then you were right the whole time. If you believe and there is no afterlife, there will be no chance for atheists to say "I told you so."

@Jai
You invoke Pascal's Wager, and yet you chose a religion that doesn't promote eternal suffering after death for non-believer. Choosing Christianity or Islam makes much more sense if you think Pascal's Wager is a valid argument (wich is not, and the fact that there are mutually exlusive faiths that condemns you to the same level of eternal suffering/happiness is a good counter-argument to it).

All things in life require faith...it just depends on what you put your faith in

I disagree, i don't think anything should require faith and i don't think faith is required for anything.

Edited 12/27/2015 01:30:59

Believing is a win-win. If you believe there is an afterlife, then you were right the whole time. If you believe and there is no afterlife, there will be no chance for atheists to say "I told you so."

Beliving is not a win-win. If there is no afterlife and everything your religion tells you is bullshit, then you would have wasted your only life in a delusion, refrained to develop it to its full potential by an irrational fear of the after life. And if there is an after-life, then you still have pick the right doctrine out of the tens of thousands of different religions there has been through the years, so you would most likely loose anyway. Pascal's Wager is not a good argument.

I do believe in evolution. And I would be shocked to find out I have a child.

You can take it as a hypothetical then. :-) But I imagine you wouldn't, considering your first answer. Well, great! I'm glad for you. (Sincerely, not sarcastically.)

Alright, I guess my next question would be: Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)? (This is moving more towards my main concerns with the OP and Col's reply (even if he isn't himself American; again, the attitude is rather common in the US).)

Believing is a win-win. If you believe there is an afterlife, then you were right the whole time. If you believe and there is no afterlife, there will be no chance for atheists to say "I told you so."

This assumes that having false beliefs about gods/religion has no real-world consequences. But we know, clearly, that this is false. Having false beliefs about gods/religions *does* have consequences for the believer. For example, some false beliefs about the afterlife are not only lethal to the believer, but to the innocent people within their blast radius.

@wct

well said. Exept for the "false belief" part. Since most religious beliefs (certainly about the after-life) are unfalsifiable, i'd say "faith-based beliefs" rather than "false beliefs". But i'm just being picky

Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)? (This is moving more towards my main concerns with the OP and Col's reply (even if he isn't himself American; again, the attitude is rather common in the US).)

I don't assume the person who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, I assume they have looked at the facts and have come to a different conclusion then me. Science is not religion and is not absolute. I do however hope that they've come to their conclusions through looking at evidence, not just doing it because they don't like the people saying that the thing is real.

yet you chose a religion that doesn't promote eternal suffering after death for non-believer

Another misconception about Hinduism my friend. A disbelief in God and a rejection of his laws does carry tangible consequences past this life: namely you continue on the endless cycles of life-and-death, as well as suffering the karmic consequences of your sins in the next life.

irrational fear of the after life

Just because you believe in God and that moral/spiritual/physical consequences exist past this one life, doesn't mean you fear what happens after your death. I am quite at peace with death to a level I never was before I turned to God.

Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)?

No. This goes back to my question about whether you want to thought police the world. Even if the answer to your question is yes, then what??! Do you want to send people to indoctrination camps? Do you want to remove churches, and temples and synagogues? Do you want to ban inciting God in the public sphere? Do you want to criminally or civilly punish those who don't believe in evolution, climate change, or vaccines? If you're concerned with the stupidity of the US voting public you may want to look at the secondary and post-secondary education in this country. We've spent billions in dollars (at the behest of progressives and liberals) to no avail as our test scores continue to plateau or see only moderate gains. We focused so much public attention to the gender gap in math, that we ignored the more dangerous gender gap in reading where males have ALWAYS underpreformed females (with little attention or resources thrown at the problem). The answer to a low educated voting class is not more progressiveness. Trust me...I'm on the front lines of this problem in my legislative district: one of the richest and most educated in the US who's voter participation in the last local elections was 15%.

Edited 12/27/2015 02:05:23

but why do you absolutely need to have a supernatural being in you explanation of the world?

Maybe I don't have an answer to that, except that theoretically the stakes are infinite costly for not believing in the Divine. Pascal's Wager is my only semi-valid counter.

Pascal's Wager works both ways. First of all, there are the *other* religions that attempt to use it, e.g. Islam. If you don't believe in Allah, you'll get an infinite cost as well. According to many depictions, it's actually *worse* than the Christian hell -- or, some variants of one are worse than some variants of the other.

So why don't you believe in Allah? And wait, aren't you Hindu anyway? Does your sect try to use Pascal-ish wagers? Sincerely curious.

Finally, there's also a possibility that there *is* a god, but one who intentionally left this universe without *any* good evidence of his/its existence, and who will only reward atheists with infinite benefit, and punish theists with infinite cost, for believing without good reasons.

Pascal's Wager is equally valid for this hypothetical god; so you should be an atheist, just to be on the safe side of *this* wager! Or maybe there is *no* god, but just coincidentally (not intentionally), atheists go to metaphorical 'heaven' and theists go to 'hell'. Again, the wager is just as valid.

This just shows the invalidity of Pascal's Wager; what can prove anything proves nothing.

@Jai
I never said disbelieving doesn't have consequences in the after-life, but being re-incarnated into a lower form of life after a temporary period in suffering is hardly the same thing as ETERNAL suffering. The major argument of Pascal was this notion of infinity and eternity. Quite logically the christian punishment for not believing is the worst punishment there is.
Also, in Hinduism, are you punished for not believing, or are you punished for not following hindu morals? Because in christianity, you can be the most caring and loving person, if you don't believe in Jesus, you will suffer eternity in Hell. On the other hand, you can be the most depicable person, if you recognize Jesus as your saviour, then you are saved and won't go to hell(according to some branch of christianism anyway). Is there an equivalent to that in Hinduism?

Edited 12/27/2015 02:17:38

Since most religious beliefs (certainly about the after-life) are unfalsifiable, i'd say "faith-based beliefs" rather than "false beliefs". But i'm just being picky

Normally I do focus on 'faith based beliefs', so I'm not disagreeing with you on that general point. However, Pascal's Wager depends on the distinction between true beliefs and false beliefs, not merely unfalsifiable beliefs.

Here's an easy way to convert from faith-based beliefs to false beliefs: Most faith based beliefs are mutually contradictory on multiple points. Since at most one mutually contradictory belief can be true, all the others must be false. So most mutually contradictory faith-based beliefs *are* false beliefs also.